Why you should vote against Wooldridge

Michael Wooldridge has a piece in today’s Age, giving some fairly standard arguments as to “Why you should vote for Howard”. As far as I’m concerned the mere fact that the story reminds readers of Wooldridge’s existence should be a good reason to vote against Howard. Although not the most incompetent Minister in the Howard government, he beat strong competition to be the one who has most lowered standards of public probity. Apart from his notorious extravagance, he regularly did favors to groups which then gave him financial or political returns. Most outrageously, he approved a public grant to a medical lobby group which hired him as a consultant as soon as he left office. It’s the accumulation of this kind of sleaze that brings down long-running governments.

10 thoughts on “Why you should vote against Wooldridge

  1. Agree with you on this one , Quiggers. Wooldridge is another of “we’re only in it for the money ” crowd that surround Howard . Think of Peter Reith .Howard of course isn’t , he is just a troubled psycopath , and I say that with considerable reluctance as I have agreed with a lot of what Strockers had to say , ( the non paranoid parts anyway).Contrary to a lot of your contributors I think Howard has made many intelligent policy decisions but a heart Howard is a moral vacuum.This is the reason he should not have another term.

  2. I saw Wooldridge in the meeja sometime this week saying that he supported the idea that there be some sort of quarantine period before ex-ministers took up positions in the private sector. (Sorry, don’t have a link or reference … it took me a couple of days before the gobsmacking catatonia passed.)

  3. But since Wooldridge has been mentioned, it’s probably my first and last opportunity to remind Latham fans that the good doctor was the other political titan whose favourite musician was this person.

  4. OT, but the Courier-Mail today had a photo of a very youthful looking John Quiggin and identified him as from ANU and Paul Williams (now at Griffith) was still associated with UQ.

  5. Supporting John H’s remarks, I’d heard that he was well regarded in Aboriginal communities.

    However, it is inexcusably tacky to accept external appointments close to your portfolio area of interest. The generous super was aimed at preventing this.

    Of course it’s easy to say that the other side was as bad with Hawke and Richo accepting Packer positions post-political life. We need higher standards from both sides.

  6. MRI actually, David.

    And it’s amazing to think of the double standards between someone who, through no fault of their own, is overpaid by Centrelink and is treated like a criminal, and a corrupt bunch of radiologists who rip-off the taxpayer for millions and get away with it.

    Three other words for anyone who might feel any sympathy for a minister who was a disgrace to the medical community: Dental Health Scheme.

    It diminishes us all to have Australians who cannot afford to get rotting teeth fixed.

  7. As an aside on “the Party Line” segment on wed afternoon on 774 Melbourne Wooldridge tipped Howard was going down. I saw his byline on the age opinion piece and decided that my sock draw needed rearranging.

Comments are closed.